Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to PMLA
BY JOHN M. YOKLAVICH
Wilbur Cross, in his biography of Sterne, states that the "notion which
still half obtains that there was an earlier private edition of Tristram
Shandy, perhaps bearing on the title-page 'York, 1759,' is erroneous,
and argues that since the paper and typography of the first edition o
the first two volumes are essentially the same as those of the third an
fourth volumes, which were printed by R. and J. Dodsley, these publish-
ers must have had "the first edition of the first instalment printed in
London for Hinxman."2 The latest and most careful bibliographical study
has been made by Lewis P. Curtis,3 who concludes that the first editio
1 Lewis Melville, The Life and Letters of Laurence Sterne (London, 1911), I, 206.
2 The Life and Times of Laurence Sterne, 3rd ed. (New Haven, 1929), p. 194.
8 "The First Printer of Tristram Shandy," PMLA, xLVII (Sept. 1932), 777-89.
508
of the first two volumes was printed by Ann, widow of Caesar Ward,
in York. He bases his conclusion on these arguments: Caesar Ward,
who had an excellent shop in York, had published Sterne's Political
Romance in 1759, and possibly his two sermons, The Case of Elijah and
the Widow of Xerephath in 1747, and The Abuses of Conscience in 1750.
After Ward died in April 1759, his widow continued the careful super-
vision of the shop with its few presses-perhaps only two, as Mr. Curtis
suggests-one of which was regularly employed for the publication of
The York Courant, in which Sterne, though a Whig, had published as
early as 1741.4
Mr. Curtis assembles an impressive list of arguments to support his
conclusion. It might be well to review the chiefly important non-biblio-
graphical evidence before we examine the strictly bibliographical prob-
lems:
1. On May 23, 1759 Sterne wrote to Dodsley and offered him the manu-
script for the first two volumes; he thought they were worth fifty pounds.
2. Dodsley's answer to this letter is not known to exist, but it is clear
from Sterne's second letter to Robert Dodsley that Dodsley thought
the risk of fifty pounds too great a risk for his brother James, who was
now to assume management of the publishing house. This letter was
probably written in October, 1759.
3. There is a letter from Catherine Fourmantel (but written by Sterne)
to David Garrick; the letter is to tell Garrick about the "two Volumes
just published here" in York.5
4. Dr. John Hill's account in the London Chronicle (3-6 May, 1760)
speaks of the books "sent up out of the country."
5. And perhaps the most convincing evidence of all is the notice in The
Public Advertiser for January 1, 1760:
York, printed for and sold by John Hinxkan (Successor to the late Mr. Hild-
yard) Bookseller, in Stonegate; J. Dodsley, in Pall-mall; and Mr. Cooper, in
Pater-noster Row, London; and by all the Booksellers in Great Britain and
Ireland.6
About this quotation from Epictetus, Mr. Curtis wrote, "Students will
notice that the type employed by Dodsley in the second edition differs
from the first edition with regard to" the theta in 'AvOpwjrovs, and the
gamma in Ao7y#uara. This is true, but one may also notice that the quo-
9 Menno Hertzberger and Co., Amsterdam, 1935. In this text, especially, are found
many illustrations of the three common watermarks that I speak of here.
10 The Library, 4th Ser., xi (1931), 263-99 and 466-98.
1 Ibid., p. 485. 12 W. A. Churchill, op. cit., pp. 43-4,
Heawood observed this mark in a copy of Moll's Atlas Minor, but the
copy that I examined, although it had the other two marks, did not show
the Vryheyt. It is clear, however, that all three were common water-
marks for good paper before 1760.
It should be observed that Heawood's important contribution to our
knowledge of watermarks in the eighteenth century appeared after Mr.
Curtis's manuscript had been submitted for publication; and Churchill's
extremely fine book appeared four years later. Without the help of the
many detailed illustrations in both these studies, it is understandable
how anyone might confuse the Britannia and the Vryheyt watermarks,
as Curtis did. After noting the Pro Patria mark in the first edition of the
Prince of Abissinia and in the second edition of Tristram Shandy, he
wrote :14
Turning thence to the first edition of the first two volumes of Tristram Shandy,
we learn that its watermark is a variant of the above. The picket fence of Rasselas
has given way to a circular band within the borders of which the legend...
reads: Pro Patria Eiusque Libertate. Upon occasion Britannia, less glorious but
now armed with a shield, graces the ornament; at other times the lion, who holds
in an outstretched paw what appears to be a sheaf either of arrows or of con-
gealed lightning, rages alone.
This is to confuse the two watermarks; the Britannia and the Vryheyt
marks are not properly variants of the Pro Patria. Mr. Curtis's copy of
the first edition of Tristram Shandy (which he kindly allowed me to ex-
amine) bears these two watermarks only: pages one to forty-nine of
volume I bear the Britannia; the rest of volume I and all of volume II
bear the Vryheyt mark. Examination of another copy of the first edi-
tion, however, reveals:15
used in England since about 1732. The Vryheyt paper is used for the
bulk of the two volumes. The peculiar details of all three patterns are
rarely found, but I judge that the paper of this edition is in no appre-
ciable way finer than the paper of Rasselas, the paper of the second
edition, or of many other books of this period. At first I thought that
the evidence better supported Mr. Curtis's claim that Mrs. Ward printed
the first edition, since I thought that the small York shop would be
more likely to use up "scraps" or extra sheets of only slightly differ-
ent paper, whereas the larger house of Dodsley would have more ample
supplies of paper. But this is only to "guess"; and it will be remembered
that Becket and Dehondt often mixed paper in the later editions of
Sterne's work. It is unfortunate that there are so few Ward publications
to examine for watermarks, and that some of those books we have do not
bear any watermark at all.
Such evidence, of course, cannot prove that Dodsley published the
first edition of Tristram Shandy, or disprove that Mrs. Ward printed it.
It was not my intention to take either position, but to look for evidence
for both possibilities. These details must somehow be fitted into the
picture when the problem of the first edition of Tristram Shandy is solved.
3. Press numbers and signatures. The facts that Mr. Curtis reports
about press numbers and signatures are incontestable, as far as I know,
but the deduction need not be inevitable that, since the first edition
bears no press numbers (as Dodsley's publications regularly do), Mrs.
Ward printed the books in her small shop which did not need to use press
numbers. Mr. Curtis also points to the fact that the printer of the first
edition signed "only three leaves of a gathering of eight," whereas "of
the thirty-nine octavo volumes, printed for [Dodsley] between the years
1751-1771," which he examined, "not one has ever revealed fewer than
four signatures."18 This is certainly important evidence, but it is "nega-
tive." Surely some other printer with a small shop, one possibly in the
employ of Dodsley, could have set up the first edition, could have de-
parted from Dodsley's regular practice in the matter of press numbers
and signatures, could have also possessed a fount of black letter type that
matched Mrs. Ward's. These types were as common as the paper patterns.
This is a possibility which I do not put much faith in myself. At best
these are only qualifications that I set up before I can accept Mr. Curtis's
careful argument that Mrs. Ward was the printer of the first edition of
Tristram Shandy.
We are fortunate to have the agreement between Sterne and James
Dodsley with regard to the publication of the second edition of Tristram
Shandy. Sterne agreed to sell the copyright of the first two volumes,
and to keep the "Profits of the Books already printed."'9 Hereafter we
can expect to find Dodsley's name as publisher of the following editions,
but the ninth volume printed by T. Durham and T. Caslon (mentioned
above) is not the only evidence that other publishers besides Dodsley,
and later Becket and Dehondt, sometimes published Tristram Shandy.
Besides the first edition of 1760 and the second edition published by
Dodsley in April 1760, there exist some copies that have the imprint:
"London Printed for D. Lynch/MDCCLX." I examined copies in the
Sterling Library; the nine volumes are bound in three, and though par-
ticularly concerned with the first two volumes, I will briefly describe one
copy of this edition:
Volume I, 1760, contains the two-page dedication to Pitt, and pages 1
to 128 of the first volume of this edition; Volume II, 1760, pages 131 to
264; Volume III, 1761, pages 267 to 416. (There is another copy of Vol-
ume I only, that is, Books one, two and three of Tristram Shandy, in
the Sterling Library; this is exactly like the volume I have described,
except that Books two and three have two title-pages. For a fuller dis-
cussion of these extra title-pages, see my description of a third copy be-
low.)
Volume Iv, 1761, begins with a new pagination, pages 1 to 166; Volume
v, 1767, has the two-page dedication to John, Lord Viscount Spencer,
and pages 174-290; Volume vi, pages 294 to 409.
Volume vii, 1765, begins with a new pagination, pages 1 to 113. Vol-
ume vIII, 1765, pages 117 to 224; and Volume IX, 1767, has the four-page
"Dedication to a Great Man," pages 231 to 320.
All the title-pages bearing Lynch's name are "cancel" pages; the paper
is clearly distinguished from the paper of the text, seems to be of inferior
quality, and the watermark is indistinct. I cannot more clearly define it
than to say that the watermark has two thin lines making a circular
band, which bears a crown; the figures within the band are not clear, but
there is no legend within the band; this watermark can best be seen on
the title-pages to volumes one, six and eight. The paper of the text itself
bears the Vryheyt mark throughout; although it is very similar, this is
not the pattern of the first edition. In this Vryheyt pattern, the letters
extend beyond the panel; and the countermark is exactly the same; but
one detail differs: on the surface of the pedestal, on each side of the pike
that rests there appear the letter P and the letter R. Without careful
examination, one would easily confuse the two patterns. The counter-
mark GR and the crown in a wreath are very clear on page 69, Volume I.
19 The text of the agreement is printed in Curtis's article, PMLA, XLVII, 779-80.
In the face of this confusion, one can merely echo Mr. Pollard's state-
ment about these editions: "How these came to be published, bibliog-
raphers, who seem to recognize no English books printed after 1640,
have as yet offered no conjecture."21 That is-no conjecture that every-
body has been willing to accept. The evidence that I have gathered sup-
ports the statements made by Mr. Cross and by Mr. Sellers that the
"Lynch edition" is a reprint. (I have not seen the Morgan copy which
Cross describes as one of the original copies purchased by Lynch from
Dodsley.) Whether Lynch "reprinted them surreptitiously for himself"
as Sellers suggests, or whether he "reset the work on some royalty agree-
ment" as Cross argues, perhaps cannot be determined, but I am inclined
to accept Seller's suggestion until the supposed royalty agreement comes
to light, for the book was so popular that it would have invited "piratical
editions." The 1766 edition of volume nine, "printed for T. Durham, and
T. Caslon," may well be a pirated edition.
Volume vII has only two title-pages, but the second page is like the
third title-page of Volume iv, in that it is marked "Vol. vii" and again
"Vol. II" (for this "Three-in-one edition").
Volumes vmII and ix each carry this second title-page, without date
or publisher's name.
The watermark, throughout, is Vryheyt on the paper of the text itself;
the watermark on the cancel pages, as in the other Yale copies, is quite
clearly not Vryheyt. Since they were merely inserted by Lynch, possibly
to lead Dodsley to believe that Lynch was still selling copies of the second
edition, they were probably printed on whatever extra sheets of paper
that Lynch had at hand.
In the quotation from the Encheiridion, the Greek letters of the "Lynch
edition" are not identical with those of the first edition, or with those
of either title-page of the second edition (volumes I and II). As explained
above, the exact characters and the ligatures of these four founts cannot
be reproduced in facsimile. One obvious variant, a misprint, will be noted,